Template talk:Article type
Some things Some things: * The image for production POV should remain Dr. Wykoff. For all the reasons given in the old argument about it; Wykoff is an interesting reference, and very relevant one considering what Memory Alpha is. Special and interesting > bland and generic. * The bar at the top + heading + disambig + quotes + spoiler + sitenotice puts the sidebar too low on the page. Looks terrible. Some way needs to be found to compress all that. When I originally had this idea a couple years ago and Cid shot the whole thing down, I just wanted the little boxes like the old realworld template. If we go back to that form, it fixes the height problem, and we can go back to Wykoff. I'm not convinced that the giant bar at the top is so useful to be worth scrolling past it on every article. --bp 16:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC) One other thing: the js that moves the bar to the top should be at the bottom of the page, not at the top waiting for onload. Just considering that the page is 250K before adding any images and stuff, it is a real jolt for the bar to jump up after you wait for the everything to load, especially on long articles. --bp 16:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :This thing is really ugly. Why is it so big? Where was the discussion for the change? It pushes the content down as bad as an ad. — Morder 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::I don't necessarily object to its being changed, but I don't recall hearing about this before now. I did think it was better being smaller.--31dot 18:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :It's just quite a major change to not even have a discussion about... — Morder 18:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :::OK, some quick responses to that: :::*"Wykoff image" - discussion here, please: File talk:Articletype realworld.png :::*"on every article" - far from it, a huge majority of in-universe articles will stay bar-free. :::*"no discussion" - this was linked to on the "how to call the new universe" TF-page. Since simple suggestions usually get no or limited response around here, I was being bold and already changed one template ( ) to make use of this. It is a one-click action to revert this, so don't complain too much about it. However, feel free to add constructive criticism. :) :::*"it's too big & why was it changed at all" - I think a change to was long overdue, because its placement never really worked with the new skin. It's that big so that the image used is recognizable at all. I believe it needs to be recognizable, because identifying different article types got more important with the timeline change of the new movie. :::-- Cid Highwind 18:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::::The call to the sidebar template should be the very first item on a page. Disambiguation links, quotes, etc. should all go after the sidebar template, exactly for the reason bp notes. There's not much we can do about the full-width templates like spoiler or articletype, though, and the site notice is always at the top, when there is one. I don't think we'd want to move the site notice, anyway. -- Renegade54 19:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Agree except for realworld which I thought should come before the sidebar. The old style realworld shared its height with the article heading so it didn't add any "overhead". I thought the real world tag in the text needed to be at the top, so when edited it was obvious that this article is different, among other reasons. --bp 19:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::::Yep, I agree that the realworld template should be at the top. Like you said, the old one didn't push the article down. Most of the realworld sidebars had the realworld template in them, so a separate realworld call wasn't really necessary (but didn't hurt). -- Renegade54 19:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :::::No real comments on the style as yet. But about half of the realworld sidebar templates had the realworld template built in. Half didn't. When two realworlds were on a page, the old style was actually drawing it twice. One over the other. It wasn't obvious. With the CSS changes and the new style... it was breaking stuff all over, thus the mass removal of "realworld" from the sidebars and proper addition into articles. Just as an aside... -- sulfur 20:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :::Not sure what template call order has to do with any of this, but I think it should at least somewhat resemble the order in which the resulting elements will be placed on the output page. This is what has been done before, and the new template variant doesn't change it one bit. Another thing unchanged by the new variant is the fact that the resulting box is placed "outside" of the article. This makes sense, because its content isn't really part of the article, but instead meta-information about the article. -- Cid Highwind 00:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::I personally think this is an excellent idea and really well done. :-) I love the MU one especially.– Cleanse 05:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Implementation Now that these templates are being implemented for the MU and the new timeline, I just need to ask if they are "in universe" too. If the are, then we could probably remove the "In the Mirror Universe...." preface that usually starts those articles.--31dot 19:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Also, should the MU tag be put in articles in which only a portion of it is relevant to the MU?--31dot 20:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC) :I would say 'no' just like we shouldn't put the on articles that only partially deal with the new timeline. — Morder 20:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ::Quick question about the template, why is the image from a parallel universe and it links to the alternate timeline page? (Don't get me wrong, I love the image.) Also, not really sure where this gos beyond the pages I already tagged. - Archduk3 00:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :::The idea I initially had was for this subtemplate to be used on articles that describe events from different timelines - to let the reader know about the fact that there's a necessary break of POV in the article. I believe the image properly depicts that - it has multiple Enterprises where there should only be one, just like the article would have multiple POVs instead of a single one. Other pages to use this one on might be some of the calendar articles, especially the years between 2233 and 2258. Feel free to further discuss the possible use of the template first, though, as there hasn't been much discussion about this specific subtemplate until now... -- Cid Highwind 08:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :::And, re: the original question. I wouldn't consider these templates "in-universe", but rather the opposite. All of the available subtemplates are basically notes from the editor directed at the reader, so that the reader knows what to expect from the article that follows: :::*RW means: "don't expect in-universe, but production POV stuff." :::*NT means: "expect in-universe stuff written from a POV." :::The exact meaning of the "MU note" might actually be up for debate. Do we want to change our POV to that of the mirror universe, or do we want to write an article in the standard POV, about another reality that has been observed by "main timeline" people. The latter is what we do at the moment, and seems the better of the alternatives IMO... -- Cid Highwind ::::For the mirror universe, I think we should continue to use the POV we currently do, i.e that of an alternate universe. We do still have the mu "language" version of MA for mirror universe articles written from a POV within the mirror universe. -- Renegade54 13:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :Does an Archivist exist in all universe's simultaneously? Does he transcend space and time? Depending on that answer it would tell us how we should write our POV for MU and NT and so forth... — Morder 13:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC) ::::I think our assumption is that the Archivists exist in the prime universe, maintaining the prime universe Memory Alpha repository, at some point in the distant future. On MA/mu, it would be the same, except Archivists would exist in that universe. -- Renegade54 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :::Yes, that has been the working hypothesis so far - however, it's a construct helping us in writing the encyclopedia, not the goal of the writing itself. I believe that the only sensible way to write this encyclopedia with in mind is to have two in-universe POVs - one for prime timeline articles, and another one for new timeline information - which has been the trigger for this template. The others, especially MU and XX, have been an afterthought to this, and may or may not be as useful as the others. -- Cid Highwind 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC) ::::: If we are going to do this, we might wish to establish something for all alternate timeline related articles, as it seems there is something of a fourth option that doesn't apply to the above. Molly would be an example of an article of someone created due to a timeline split (just not the one we recognize) in this tl, who doesn't live in the mirror universe, nor existed in multiple timelines... --Alan 22:15, December 12, 2009 (UTC) :::But Molly is a person that is known to inhabitants of the "main" timeline, so the POV of the article can be that of any other standard article. So, while I generally agree that a disclaimer for articles written from the POV of a "non-main" timeline might be a good thing to have (if such articles exist), I think this is not a proper example for it. -- Cid Highwind 16:16, December 13, 2009 (UTC) how make band ? on MA-fr we would like to make same band, but how write on picture like yours ? this is my final work fr:Modèle:UniversMiroir(B) I don't understand how you made it. can I know your codes / datas for make it ? and how place the final image/side on the middle page like for USS Defiant (NCC-1764) ? Thank you C-IMZADI-4 21:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC) :It's based on CSS stuff primarily to be honest. That's what does the heavy lifting. -- sulfur 21:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC) so I can't make like you ? C-IMZADI-4 20:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC) ::I added the necessary stuff to your fr:Mediawiki:Common.css and fr:Mediawiki:Common.js, as well as changing your template page to the content of the page here. You will have to wait some time, or force a complete page reload in your browser, but it should become visible eventually. See a test on my user page, fr:User:Cid Highwind. -- Cid Highwind 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC) thank you, so I can use same codes for "alternate reality" and "real world" or your changing makes for all ??? bands will be in french ??? (sorry, now I Disconnect and I'm going to sleep !!! I 'll read your answer tomorrow). thank you again. C-IMZADI-4 21:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC) ::Yes, you can use the same template for all "types" of this banner. I overwrote the content you added to fr:Modèle:UniversMiroir(B), but it would of course make sense to move this template to the french translation of "article type". As the page describes, you can then use the different types by adding a parameter to the template, like or . ::The text is in english right now, but you can translate that by changing just the text part of the template page. To translate the template documentation, go to fr:Modèle:UniversMiroir(B)/doc. -- Cid Highwind 21:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC) sorry but I don't understand how access to template codes for overwrite in french !!! now the page shows result but not codes line by line. If I use I make in english. How change that for put french ??? I'm not specialist thank you for patience and understanding. A plus tard merci C-IMZADI-4 20:51, September 1, 2009 (UTC) :sorry again me, I found (i believe) I try my translate and if I fail, I'll ask you again... can you wait ? thanks C-IMZADI-4 20:55, September 1, 2009 (UTC) :can you see my fr version. My picture is not in the band... thanksC-IMZADI-4 08:02, September 2, 2009 (UTC) ::If you are changing the type name, you will have to change that name in the CSS file as well. I did that here. -- Cid Highwind 10:17, September 2, 2009 (UTC) Far Beyond the Stars articles The episode takes places almost exclusively within a vision by Benjamin Sisko. Given that all the 1950s references are also from that vision and are not conclusively within the "realword" of Star Trek, wouldn't it make sense to put articles like Incredible Tales (and it's many stories), Douglas Pabst and others under some sort of alternate heading? Something like to point out that these are not really articles that are in the star trek universe but a vision by Sisko. In other words they're not "real" in the star trek universe. — Morder (talk) 22:44, November 10, 2009 (UTC) :Sounds like a good idea. If there was not support for that, a category might be a good second choice.--31dot 23:12, November 10, 2009 (UTC) Well, I thought about a category, as well, but figured that this was a bit more than a category as it involved something outside the normal star trek universe (like a mirror universe) but I'd support a category if that's what we end up with. — Morder (talk) 23:33, November 10, 2009 (UTC) ::With the new template, I think that this is a valid use of the system. -- sulfur 23:45, November 10, 2009 (UTC) I've uploaded a sample Image and Implemenation if this is voted successfully. I wanted to show a character from both episodes and one of a Prophet "looking" at Benny Russell. — Morder (talk) 00:09, November 11, 2009 (UTC) :I like the image.--31dot 00:22, November 11, 2009 (UTC) After thinking about it Quark's dream of the Divine treasury also falls into this type of category so my image and at least the name might not be quite appropriate. — Morder (talk) 03:17, November 11, 2009 (UTC) :Was your intention to tag all illusory characters/etcetera, or just the Benny Russell ones? It might be better to be broader, that way we don't have several tags for different illusions.--31dot 03:21, November 11, 2009 (UTC) My initial intention was to highlight articles that take place in an illusion of the episode "Far Beyond the Stars". Stuff like the magazine, the building and so forth only take place in that world and thus aren't really in the "normal" star trek universe. It just so happens that I recalled the Divine Treasury and thought that it might also do well to have a similar notice that it's purely an illusion and not representative of a real thing in star trek. — Morder (talk) 03:36, November 11, 2009 (UTC) :::I'd prefer to have a single image for this, instead of a collage - but other than that, the idea is good. If this is supposed to be for all kinds of visions, maybe some shot using the "Prophets effect" (white background, oversaturated), or the glass-breaking effect from ? -- Cid Highwind 09:21, November 11, 2009 (UTC) ::::What about Unnamed Humans (20th century), which has characters from FBTS and other series? Setacourse 22:15, November 11, 2009 (UTC) :::::The "Far Beyond the Stars" visions IMO are very much removed from "standard" prophet visions or Quark's dream, and should have a separate header from the others. Also, I'm with Cid on the single image for the header, and a little partial to this image for "Far Beyond the Stars", and this one for the others. - 04:18, November 12, 2009 (UTC) Well, I'm not really wanting to create a different header for the different types visions per-se. What I'm talking about are articles that exist only in a vision. Roy Ritterhouse, Douglas Pabst and others from that episode exist as part of a vision by the prophets. Other stuff that the prophets use to create a vision is that of something that we know exists such as the bridge. For those type of images we could use a category but if we had an article about the Saratoga bridge used in the vision from the prophets then that page would get the new header. So I don't think we should have a different header for different types of visions simply because they fit under the common heading of Vision. Now, as for dream sequences or items that only appear in a dream. They can fit under a similar heading though we might have to rename it to something more descriptive. Dream/Vision or something similar. This might qualify pages like scenes from and (though not sure if anything from the latter exists only in that episode). I hope what I'm saying comes across right. We shouldn't have a different heading for Far Beyond the Stars and another one for Dream stuff it should be one for ALL. — Morder (talk) 04:49, November 12, 2009 (UTC) *Agreed--I think Morder's suggestion of a "Dream/Vision" header for articles for all things existing only in an illusory state would be the best way to go. Actually, to tell you the truth, I personally think calling it just "Illusory" would be even better, since it would allow for things like hallucinations, etc. that don't usually fit under the standard definition of "dream" or "vision", per se. I think that would allow for a bit more flexibility. Anyway, just my $0.02. :-) -Mdettweiler 04:56, November 12, 2009 (UTC) :::::(Edit conflict) I think I get what your going for here, and I ran into the same trouble where I suggested the category for the FBtS stuff, as it's never really explained if it was a vision, a delusion, if it was real, or not, was it from the prophets, the pah-wraith? That's why I have always see it as "something more" than the "standard" stuff, IE: , along with the stuff you mentioned. A broad scope would be good for dreams/delusions/visions/too many beans, but it seems only "Frame of Mind" and "Far Beyond the Stars" have articles that would use it, since everything else seems to fall under one or another of our existing categories, and wouldn't need a header as well (I could be missing some though). - 05:31, November 12, 2009 (UTC) Alternate reality I don't have a clue how these banners work, so I'll post this here. We should probably change the banner from "New timeline" to "alternate reality", since the latter is what we've ended up using everywhere (as the only canon description). Also, the bit about "Name and appearance of this sub-template are not final. This template is not to be used until a title has been agreed." is somewhat outdated, since it has been used everywhere. ;-)– Cleanse 02:58, April 21, 2010 (UTC) :I'm all for reopening this, as the the term "alternate reality" is used far more than "new timeline". I know there was a big hoopla over this right after the film came out, but we could at least continue that discussion here. - 03:29, April 21, 2010 (UTC) ::The past discussions are here and, conveniently stored away, somewhere here. Please read those pages, and all the wonderful explanations about how various names might not really apply to the situation. -- Cid Highwind 10:31, April 21, 2010 (UTC) Sheesh, no need to bring up that hoopla again. We've gone with "alternate reality" as our terminology for months now, it's canon, let's stick with it.– Cleanse 11:02, April 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Well... with the same strange reasoning, I might say that this template has been using the term "new timeline" for months, so let's stick with that. And why not? - the template "has been used everywhere", after all...? -- Cid Highwind 11:54, April 21, 2010 (UTC) :If I may interject with a different line of reasoning. is what we use for the mirror universe on this template, and other templates use it as well ( ), while the actual articles use (mirror) as the disambiguation ( Hoshi Sato (mirror) ). is for the alternate reality, while other templates use "alt" ( ) and the pages use (alternate reality) for the disambiguation ( Spock (alternate reality) ). This is confusing, as both New Timeline and Alternate Reality are being used, albeit from a different POV. If everything else related to Star Trek is using the AR disambiguation, why shouldn't this as well? - 21:14, April 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Not to sound too defensive, but that reasoning doesn't lead us anywhere, either. Confusion with the naming, if such exists, would be avoided by using "new timeline" throughout just as much as it would by using "alternate reality". It's a reason to eventually come to some conclusion, but not a reason for or against any specific one. Actually, with a more distanced view now that the film has been out for a year, I think, even more than before, that "new timeline" screams "Star Trek '09" much more than "alternate reality" does. -- Cid Highwind 21:31, April 21, 2010 (UTC) I hardly think pointing out that "alternate reality" was at least used in canon, unlike other fan-made terms such as "new timeline", is strange reasoning. But yes, the fact that all substantive content – references in background sections, the article, the disambiguation – have used the "AR" term for awhile now, and has become established, is significant. The most important thing is that we be consistent. Rather than move dozens of pages, we can just change the wording on this one template...– Cleanse 23:46, April 21, 2010 (UTC) This page can only be edited by admins The cascading protection on the AOL talk pages prevents anyone from editing who isn't an admin. The protection level should be changed. --bp 03:20, April 21, 2010 (UTC) Something wrong with coding... On the Memory Gamma wiki we use a similar template for who the author of a page is. When Wikia changed the design on wikis, this template stopped working correctly, the template started being covered up by the page. Is there anything that I can do to fix this? -- 21:55, December 29, 2010 (UTC) :You will probably also need to update the script - see MediaWiki:Common.js (section "Articletype positioning"). -- Cid Highwind 11:04, December 30, 2010 (UTC) ::Thanks. 17:52, December 30, 2010 (UTC) Articletype: one more? Recently, I was considering a personal project going through references from time travel eps to add articletype templates (which are still missing in a lot of articles). As you may know, apart from realworld articles, there are templates for two alternate realities, the STXI timeline and the Mirror universe, and one for stuff that has been seen in more then one reality. But going through the articles it occured to me there's one other type of article which seems (at least to me) an obvious candidate for having its own template within this system. Stuff that was seen in some alternate reality or timeline, and only there. It would contain articles like Melanie, USS Rhode Island or MacIntyre. But note that articles like Sela would still be classified "multiple realities" Anyone thinks this is a good idea? As for an image, I haven't really thougt about that yet, but I'm sure something suitably iconic might be found. Actually, now that I think of it, the AGT Enterprise-D might be cool. Though I'm sure someone will come up with a better idea. -- Capricorn 22:07, February 10, 2011 (UTC) :There isn't really a good shot of the anti-time Enterprise-D, so how about this one? :I suggest "at" for the option, as in alternate timeline, so it would be . Also, if we are going to do this, we might want to fix up the alternate timeline article first, since right now it's in shambles.- 13:16, February 11, 2011 (UTC) ::Both "AGT Enterprise-D" and "Borg earth" would be nice images - however, they are misleading if the idea is to present objects that do exist solely in another timeline (and not in the main one). -- Cid Highwind 14:21, February 11, 2011 (UTC) :Earth may exist in the main timeline, but the Borg structures don't. If we can't use Earth though, the only iconic image I can think of that works in that case is the "future" combadge and uniform, and that's not very eye catching. - 14:58, February 11, 2011 (UTC) :::They did exist in the main timeline. Even if only briefly before the Ent-E zipped back in time. -- sulfur 15:01, February 11, 2011 (UTC) ::That, and "Borg structures on earth" is not really an article... ;) Perhaps we could start listing more examples of where this template would actually be used. That way, we could both find possible images and at the same time see whether the suggestion is really useful. -- Cid Highwind 15:02, February 11, 2011 (UTC) :Re:sulfur, that just illustrates the problem with deciding what constitutes an alternate timeline, as that couldn't be the "main" timeline, as it isn't the one "we" know. :Re Cid - Morn's, Year of Hell, Krenim weapon ship (maybe), Linnis Paris, Andrew Kim, Bio-temporal chamber, Interspatial parasite, Korena, Subspace flux isolator, most of stuff that starts with "anti-time", Marin County Starfleet Yards, USS Pasteur. That's all I can think of right now. - 16:49, February 11, 2011 (UTC) I don't think we should obsess too much about philosophical questions about what's the alternative timeline too much, but rather go for a practical and intuitive approach. I would suggest just drawing a line representing the "final" version of the history of the universe from beginning to end (the one a writer on a 25th century series would regard as the "right" history), and anything existing in a timeline which isn't part of the final one would be an alternate timeline, regardless of which was the original. Also, I don't get why the Borg assimilation of Earth is different from any other alternative timeline, it's just that the enterprise accidently got shielded from being overwritten along with the rest of the Federation. -- Capricorn 18:20, February 11, 2011 (UTC) To better explain my point about the Borg Earth - In this system the battle of sector 001 would be main timeline, and so would be the 2063 events seen in the film (albeit possibly overwriting a never-seen Borg-less original launch, depending if you believe in stable time loops), but the Borg succeeding in assimilating Earth in 2063 would be an alternate timeline. -- Capricorn 18:28, February 11, 2011 (UTC) ::The important point about the "Borg earth" image is not whether it is or isn't an image from a "true" alternate timeline - the point is that the image depicts an object (Earth) that is not seen "only in an alternate timeline" (which is what the banner is supposed to describe). ::That said, I wonder if this template wouldn't easily be misinterpreted as if it explicitly stated that "this object does not exist in the main timeline": The USS Pasteur, for example, has a registry much lower than the latest "main timeline" starships - so perhaps, although we don't know it, it actually did exist in the main timeline since the 2350s? What would the wording on the template be to avoid this misinterpretation? -- Cid Highwind 12:50, February 12, 2011 (UTC) :"Covers information from an alternate timeline" should do it. That doesn't preclude the idea that it existed in other timelines, including the main one, it just states that the information as we know it only comes from an alternate timeline. :As for the image, why not upload a few more options Cid? - 13:15, February 12, 2011 (UTC) Cid, I missunderstood your argument, but in any case I don't think that's so important. The new timeline template already contains an image of the Kelvin being attacked, which sans the attack presumably also exists in the main timeline. And I doubt anyone would have gotten confused if we had taken an image of a bearded Spock for the Mirror universe template, despite a somewhat differently looking Spock being in the main timeline. As for the Pasteur, yes it most likely also exists in the main timeline, but it only canonically exists in the alternate timeline. At least for me personally that seems good enough. @Archduk3 - this might help : Time travel episodes (though at least seems to be missing). Check the image categories corresponding to those eps, and you'll find plenty of ideas. -- Capricorn 18:12, February 12, 2011 (UTC) :Best banner ever? I think so. - 18:52, February 12, 2011 (UTC) That's pretty awesome. -- Capricorn 23:25, February 13, 2011 (UTC) :I've added this to the template, since the image is easily changed and what articles this will be on can still be discussed. In fact, it might just be easier to tag them now and take a look at the total number that use it, if numbers is a problem. A bot could always remove them afterward if we wanted, and it's much easier than listing every page here first and then deploying this. - 19:32, February 17, 2011 (UTC) Cool, I'll start adding adding it to pages. As four your "if numbers is a problem" remark; note that I never claimed that there would be huge numbers of such articles, only that it's more then just an isolated handful, enough that it makes sense. -- Capricorn 05:32, February 18, 2011 (UTC) Just my personal opinion, but it I'm really happy with the way it now clearly marks pages like this one. -- Capricorn 05:39, February 18, 2011 (UTC) A question regarding Articletype I know this isn't really related to this wiki, but I'm interested in how you get above the page title. I'm hoping to achieve a similar effect on another wiki (unrelated to Star Trek), but I can't find anything that might do it in the Wikicode or CSS. Could somebody perhaps explain it to me, if it's not too much trouble? Thanks :) Dendodge 19:52, November 5, 2011 (UTC) :See MediaWiki:Common.js. You would need to note the difference in copyright and the source of the js if you use it though. - 19:58, November 5, 2011 (UTC) Ah, thank you. JS is the one thing I've never understood. Unfortunately, since it's BY-ND, I can't adapt it for our own purposes - I didn't think of that. I guess I'll stick to the CSS hack we use ATM. Dendodge 21:52, November 5, 2011 (UTC) ::You can still use it, as long as you note the licensing bit for that small segment of JS code :) -- sulfur 21:58, November 5, 2011 (UTC) Article Banner template help Greetings! At Memory Gamma, we use the same coding that you use for your article-type banner template. However, we have two different ones: one for Authors and another for article-type. When using both on one article, only the Author banner moves to the top above the article title. I would like to have both banners appear above the title, if at all possible. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!--Trip 00:41, June 24, 2012 (UTC) :You can only have one banner at the top using the code we have, see for what happens when more than one is used. - 01:13, June 24, 2012 (UTC) How do I make the thing? How do you put in the backgrounds for this template? I'm trying to do something similar on Galactic Crucibles Wiki but I'm not having any luck searching for assistance on Community Central because they keep on telling me to access the Common.css page, which I can't, because I don't have admin rights. Is it possible to add the background images without accessing Common.css? ::Thanks, :: 21:16, May 5, 2013 (UTC) :No, you have to use a CSS and JS page to get them to work. - 05:44, May 6, 2013 (UTC) Retcons Continuing the discussion from here, here is a preliminary idea for a banner image that could be used for the retconned articles. I'm pretty limited in what I can do right now, so it's not great, but I think an original image fading to a remastered one would be a pretty good starting place. As for the text, I was thinking something like this: :Retcon article :covers information that was retroactively changed Thoughts? - 22:42, May 14, 2013 (UTC) :If I understand the talk page you linked to correctly, this category is meant specifically for things that were explicitly written "out of existence" (like Kermit T. Frog as a member of the Raymond family). However, so far our stance on TOS-R changes was to somewhat gloss over visual differences between old models and new CGI and accept both as "valid" at the same time. Unless that has changed (discussed where?), I think we shouldn't use exactly that (basically two valid "personas" of a ship) to express the idea of a retcon. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 22:58, May 14, 2013 (UTC) :Different idea: we could use an image showing something abstract like a character trait that was later retconned. What came to my mind was the image of Spock smiling at some weird blue plants in The Cage: . It doesn't necessarily have to be exactly this image, of course, but I think it gets across the idea of a retcon nicely. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 23:08, May 14, 2013 (UTC) How to deal with retcons is still kinda been nebulous, since the recent forum discussion, the , and the discussions about how to use the category doesn't really result in a clear guideline. What I'm going with is: both versions are still "valid/canon", with the conflict between the two resulting in the remastered version being the "in-universe" version, while the original is "moved" to a recton page, which can be written "in-universe" or not. The retcon page would also collect any info on the change in one location, resulting in less duplication over multiple pages. The "retconned but canon" discussion on the category talk page could continue until we get something that could be added to the content policy. As for the image, that idea could work. The only thing I think might be an issue with that particular one is that Spock seems to smile quite a lot, at least in my memory. - 06:01, May 15, 2013 (UTC) :Spock smiles? A lot? Blasphemy! :) Seriously, if that image doesn't quite work, other aspects that were retconned are Klingon makeup (image perhaps from ENT, where a Klingon loses his ridges), Trill makeup (do we have an image of the makeup test for Jadzia?), or Klingons as Federation members (image: the view screen image from an early TNG episode, showing Federation and Klingon logos side by side). --Cid Highwind (talk) 11:46, May 15, 2013 (UTC) We do indeed have the makeup test for Dax, though the quality needs a bump up if it were to be used. While we could use the makeup test image (since Jadzia doesn't have that look), I'm not sure any other images of that makeup could be used, because the TNG Trill makeup shouldn't get it's own page. It clearly is a retcon and should be mentioned on that page, but it wasn't actually "removed" from continuity. The TNG Trill are like the laser pistols from "The Cage", as opposed to the 79th deck of the Enterprise-A, problematic, but not to the point The individual pages, as I see it, are for things that can't both be in-universe because one "replaces" the other. Of course, the word phaser written over the word laser by a smiling Spock wearing the Federation and Klingon emblems side by side is, IMO, the perfect MAlf, or April fools, version of this. :) - 18:47, May 15, 2013 (UTC) :Bonus points if you manage to additionally make that an animated gif, for extra annoyance! :) --Cid Highwind (talk) 19:49, May 15, 2013 (UTC) ::If you're still looking for image suggestions, how about the biggest one of them all; the Klingon makeup? You could show a picture of TOS Klingons and TNG/DS9/VOY Klingons side by side. --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:04, January 25, 2014 (UTC) Retcon for retcons I've uploaded a "blank" image for this so the banner can be used. We can add an image when we have one that works. - 04:15, January 5, 2014 (UTC) Character pages What is the policy, if any, about using this template on character articles? Nearly every major character has a section in their article about their experiences in alternate timelines, and yet some, such as Kathryn Janeway, have the template, while others like William T. Riker don't. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:30, January 25, 2014 (UTC) :If the template fits, use it. There's thousands of articles here at MA and chances are we've not got around to adding the template yet. I expect it will take a good few years before every article has the template where required. --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:01, January 25, 2014 (UTC) ::Okay, thanks! I figured that was probably the case, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something important. ProfessorTofty (talk) 16:00, February 7, 2014 (UTC)